119th Congress or Red Wave In Adult Land

While the Big Beautiful Bill is problematic in various ways it does reduce outlays relative to baseline by $1.3 trillion. That is something. People can argue for more or less but that does represent a substantial spending cut. It will have consequences. Such as increasing the number without health insurance by 10 million. It will have a significant negative effect on people living in poverty, including the children in such households.
 
nsacpi said:
While the Big Beautiful Bill is problematic in various ways it does reduce outlays relative to baseline by $1.3 trillion. That is something. People can argue for more or less but that does represent a substantial spending cut. It will have consequences. Such as increasing the number without health insurance by 10 million. It will have a significant negative effect on people living in poverty, including the children in such households.
Click to expand...
LOL academics are useless
 
nsacpi said:
While the Big Beautiful Bill is problematic in various ways it does reduce outlays relative to baseline by $1.3 trillion. That is something. People can argue for more or less but that does represent a substantial spending cut. It will have consequences. Such as increasing the number without health insurance by 10 million. It will have a significant negative effect on people living in poverty, including the children in such households.
Click to expand...
We can never reduce spending because ANY cut in spending is seen as immoral and people will die. Inversely, as spending has increased exponentially the last 5 years surely millions of lives would have been saved.
 
chop2chip said:
We can never reduce spending because ANY cut in spending is seen as immoral and people will die. Inversely, as spending has increased exponentially the last 5 years surely millions of lives would have been saved.
Click to expand...
Dude this bill calls for spending cuts a half decade from now after massive spending increases! We're all gonna die!!!
 
I wouldn't say all spending cuts are immoral. Just pointing out that these particular cuts will have certain effects.
 
mqt said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1930349154791821624

This would be a really, really dumb Amendment even if you believe in the importance of reducing the deficit. If the House and Senate both pass a bunch of bills with 1 vote majorities, we’re supposed to throw out all the people who voted *against* that spending?
Click to expand...
This is the buffet rule. Anytime a budget is passed with a deficit more than 3% of GDP, ALL sitting congressmen are ineligible to run again
 
sturg33 said:
This is the buffet rule. Anytime a budget is passed with a deficit more than 3% of GDP, ALL sitting congressmen are ineligible to run again
Click to expand...
It’s still a dumb rule because not everybody votes for the same things and you’d take the ones supposedly helping the cause too. I could also see that driving a lame duck congress to just do whatever they feel like until the end of their terms. Just a fun little joke of a rule.
 
https://twitter.com/x/status/1936078371039105403

Objectively hilarious that even the defense of the bill makes it obvious why its stated intent to drive down housing costs is absurd. Selling Blackrock a bunch of hard to access federal land isn’t going to lead to more housing. The investors will just sit on the land for a decade then eventually sell it for it some sort of industrial use for a massive profit.
 
mqt said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1936078371039105403

Objectively hilarious that even the defense of the bill makes it obvious why its stated intent to drive down housing costs is absurd. Selling Blackrock a bunch of hard to access federal land isn’t going to lead to more housing. The investors will just sit on the land for a decade then eventually sell it for it some sort of industrial use for a massive profit.
Click to expand...
Why is it hilarious?

I grew up in the mountain west in Utah where 2/3rds of the state land is owned by the federal government. Half of what the federal government owns they do nothing with. It’s not a national park, it’s not for conservation — it’s non designated land.

It’s a big hit to state and local tax revenue. Schools in Utah are among the worst funded in the country per capita. On top of that, the land is grossly mismanaged. Every year there’s millions of acres burned in wildfires.

I am not a fan of Mike Lee, but I think this bill would be a net positive.
 
chop2chip said:
Why is it hilarious?

I grew up in the mountain west in Utah where 2/3rds of the state land is owned by the federal government. Half of what the federal government owns they do nothing with. It’s not a national park, it’s not for conservation — it’s non designated land.

It’s a big hit to state and local tax revenue. Schools in Utah are among the worst funded in the country per capita. On top of that, the land is grossly mismanaged. Every year there’s millions of acres burned in wildfires.

I am not a fan of Mike Lee, but I think this bill would be a net positive.
Click to expand...

I simply don’t trust the government to turn this into anything more than a massively lucrative investment for companies that already own a bunch of land to sit on until the statutory requirements are met, and as such find the more affordable housing argument hilarious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top